National
Minnesota gearing up for marriage fight
In symbolic move, guv vetoes 2012 ballot measure
Donald McFarland is leading the effort for Minnesotans United for all Families (Photo courtesy of McFarland)
Supporters of LGBT rights are gearing up for yet another fight at the ballot against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
This time around, the theater for battle is Minnesota.
Donald McFarland, spokesperson for the new coalition known as Minnesotans United for All Families, said nearly 1,000 people have already signed up to work against the amendment on the campaign website within 48 hours of passage by the legislature.
“They are signing up by the hundreds to help us,” McFarland said. “It’s incredible actually. The outpouring of support to what happened Saturday night is as great as I have ever seen in my political career — and I’ve been doing this for 30 years.”
On Saturday, the Minnesota State House gave final approval to the proposed constitutional amendment by a vote of 70-62. The State Senate had already passed the measure.
The Republican-controlled legislature’s approval sends the measure to the state electorate. If a majority of voters approves the marriage ban in 2012, it will become part of the state constitution.
Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Minnesota by statute, but passage of the amendment would prohibit the legislature from legalizing same-sex marriage in the future or the state courts from finding a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution.
A coalition of LGBT organizations — including national groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and Freedom to Marry as well as local groups OutFront Minnesota and Project 515— launched a new coalition, Minnesotans United for All Families, immediately upon approval of the amendment.
The plans for the nascent campaign are still being developed. An official campaign manager has yet to be named. Still, the campaign has already piqued the interest of supporters of same-sex marriage.
McFarland said the biggest goal at this point is to start a conversation with the Minnesota electorate about the love and commitment of same-sex couples and reminding voters that discrimination runs contrary to state values.
“The biggest component of the next many, many months is the fact that we’ll have an army of people, an army of volunteers, an army of smart, smart Minnesotans who want to help,” McFarland said. “That’s an advantage that we have ten-fold over the other side.”
McFarland, the de facto head of Minnesotans United for All Families until a campaign manager is selected, said he’s been involved in Minnesota politics for nearly 10 years.
In 2006, he was state director of American Voters, an organization that works to advance liberal-leaning policies and expand access to the ballot. Last year he worked as a communicators officer for the Minnesota Democratic Party.
McFarland’s LGBT portfolio includes working as the gay liaison in Philadelphia for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and serving as a board member for Project 515.
Money is already a concern for the new coalition. Proponents of the anti-gay amendment in Minnesota have pledged to raise $4.7 million to ensure its passage. McFarland said he wants to raise the amount dollar-for-dollar to thwart the effort.
“Things like fundraising goals are still being really fleshed out, but I will tell you that I am committed to raising $4.7 million to match what the other side claims it will spend,” McFarland said.
The output for the campaign is still under deliberation, but McFarland said he envisions paid television advertisements as well as additional paid media presence.
As supporters of same-sex marriage gear up for the fight, anti-gay groups, such as the Minnesota Family Council, are working for passage of the amendment.
The Minnesota Family Council had urged passage of the amendment, asserting that gays and lesbians eat human excrement, that gays and lesbians are more likely to be pedophiles and engage in bestiality, and that domestic partner benefits are a recruiting tool. The anti-gay group has since the scrubbed the language from its online promotions.
McFarland said maintaining a “respectful” tone throughout the campaign is a priority and criticized the anti-gay group’s tactics in the debate.
“It’s just vile language,” McFarland said. “It has no place here. It certainly has no place in Minnesota.”
The Minnesota Family Council didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s requests for comment for this article.
Polling on the amendment in Minnesota is limited, but is promising for those working to defeat the measure. A poll published May 13 by the Minnesota Star Tribune found that 55 percent of respondents oppose adding such language banning same-sex marriage to the state constitution while 39 percent favor such a measure.
McFarland said he thinks the polling is “absolutely” comforting news, but shouldn’t be seen as a guarantee that Minnesota voters will reject the proposed constitutional amendment.
“A year-and-a-half is a long time, so who knows?” McFarland said. “We want to beat this ballot question and we’re going to do everything we can to do that.”
Issac Wood, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said the 2012 presidential election — and the strength of President Obama — may have an impact on the result of the Minnesota ballot initiative.
“Often pundits and the media talk about referendums driving voter turnout and influencing elections, but in this case we may see the reverse,” Wood said. “If Obama is able to win a sizable victory in Minnesota again in 2012, which he won by 10 percentage points in 2008, perhaps he could draw enough socially liberal voters to the polls to defeat the marriage amendment as well.”
Wood said based on the history of the marriage ballot initiatives, Minnesota voters may approve the amendment. Still, he observed that national opinion on marriage has been evolving rapidly in the past year.
“Public opinion on the issue seems to be turning recently, with new polls showing nationwide approval of gay marriage on the rise,” Wood said. “Whether that approval has risen quickly enough to stem the tide of marriage amendments remains to be seen.”
Although there are promising poll numbers, a victory at the polls on the marriage issue is an extremely rare feat for LGBT rights supporters. Each time that a ban on same-sex marriage has come to voters at the state level, it has almost always been approved.
In 2006, Arizona voters rejected an amendment that would have made a ban on same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions part of the state constitution. However, voters passed a similar amendment in 2008 that banned only same-sex marriage.
Despite the dismal batting average, McFarland said he plans to draw on lessons from those earlier battles and has had conversations with those who’ve gone before him.
“We’re currently talking to others in other states that have gone before us in these battles over same-sex couples’ ability to get married,” McFarland said. “We very much intend to be mindful of all of them as we move forward.”
Prominent Minnesotans have already spoken out against the amendment. On Wednesday, Gov. Mark Dayton (D) penned a symbolic veto. Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, he doesn’t have the authority as governor to stop the initiative from becoming part of state law.
“Although I do not have the power to prevent this divisive and destructive constitutional amendment from appearing on the Minnesota ballot in November 2012, the legislature sent it to me in the form of a bill,” Dayton said. “Thus, symbolic as it may be, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign it or veto it. Without question, I am vetoing it.”
McFarland said he appreciates Dayton’s vocal opposition to the amendment — and said the governor was speaking out against it even before the legislature gave final approval — but he said he doesn’t think Dayton will play a large role in the campaign against the initiative.
“He’s the governor and his job is to be governor, not to be part of the campaign,” McFarland said. “His campaign was last year. Will he speak out about this issue? I believe he will because he feels passionately about this, like so many other Minnesotans.”
Another prominent politician from Minnesota has voiced a similar objection. On Monday, U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) also slammed the amendment in a statement to media outlets.
“Every Minnesotan deserves dignity and equal treatment under the law, and our state’s same-sex couples should have the same right to marry as anyone else — period,” Franken said. “This amendment would do nothing more than write discrimination into our state’s constitution and add to the barriers same-sex couples already face to the full recognition of their families. I’m hopeful that common sense and compassion will prevail and that this amendment will be defeated.”
Also earlier this week, White House spokesperson Shin Inouye issued a statement to the Washington Blade on President Obama’s position on the measure.
“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples or to take such rights away,” Inouye said. “While he believes this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also believes that committed gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.”
The statement doesn’t explicitly mention the proposed constitutional amendment in Minnesota. Additionally, the statement reaffirms Obama’s lack of support for same-sex marriage rights by saying the issue is “best addressed by the states.”
McFarland said he’s “thrilled” the White House issued a statement, but dodged on whether he’d like to see more from Obama over the course of the campaign against the amendment.
“I really have no answer to that,” McFarland said. “I’m not going to make a call in the press to the White House. I’m not comfortable with that.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
